I think we should look to restructure his deal in order to spread out the luxury limit hit we have this winter.

Lackey is due $15.25M in 2014 and about $500K for 2015. ($16.5 and $ 0.5M towards the luxury limit budget)

If we can offer him $8.5M for 2014 and $8.5M for 2015, he'll make $1.25M more overall, but it will save us about $8M off the luxury limit this year, but add about $8M in 2015, a year we dump a boatload of contracts off the books.

I wouldn't be against adding a 3rd year or a club option 3rd year, but Lackey will probably want a lot of money for 2016 and beyond.

if you restructure, I would assume you would have to add another year to the deal for lackey to take it. His AAV this year is 13.25 I believe.

My offer gives him $1.25M more than he will make over the next 2 years. I think he'll take it, especially if he knows it might help make us more competitive in 2014.

Why do you think he won't play for league minimum? He ddid agree to the deal and that clause was part of it at the time.

If he did not like the clause, the time to voice his opinion was 2009, not 2015...

[/QUOTE]

The clause was a weak throw in to give the Sox the slight upper hand in a re-negociation. They always knew he wouldn't play for 500,0000 and just figured they slant any future negociations in their favor.

Notice that the Sox have not used this clause again (nor has any other team). The reason is that it is a bogus clause with no real value. The deal will be re-negociated and everyone will be happy.

I am not even going to gloat about this when I am right (as this issue is crystal clear). But would be happy to take my beating if in bizarro world, he acually plays for less than 1/30 of what he will make in 2014.

[/QUOTE]

Not really true.

Felix Hernandez has a similar clause, where if he spents 130 consecutive days on the DL, he has to pitch in 2020 for $1mill.

If anything, teams are probably going to use this type of clause more and more. The most likely reason the Sox have not used it is they have not signed a free agent pitcher to a long term contract since the Lackey deal.

It's really the safer way to handle the old-fashioned "with X amount of IP" vesting clause...

Why should the Red Sox rip it up? Lackey got $82.5M and was damaged good for two year, with one of those years, being on the DL for the entire season. He signed the contract knowing that if he was out, he'd have to play for $500K in 2015.

The Red Sox have him for a steal in 2015, but rightfully so. Lackey made out in 2012, making $16M and not throwing one pitch.

The guy to trade would be Dempster. Eat 20-40% of his contract and trade him.

The Red Sox (or some new team) will rip it up, as they know that he will not play for 500,000. Rookie scrubs make 500,000. John Lackey just came off of a season in which he started the clinching game of the World Series and was one of two dependable starters all season. The Red Sox insured the contract and I am sure were reimbursed for Lackey's lost year.

I am not saying that Lackey earned the 82,500,000, but that doesn't really matter. If he holds out, then he will get paid. Likely, the issue is addressed before the end of the 2014 season.

Why should the Red Sox pay him for not pitching at all for a whole year? John Lackey agreed to that contract and unless its restructured in some way WILL play for $500K. I am pretty sure that just opting out of it is simply not an option available to him

Why should the Red Sox rip it up? Lackey got $82.5M and was damaged good for two year, with one of those years, being on the DL for the entire season. He signed the contract knowing that if he was out, he'd have to play for $500K in 2015.

The Red Sox have him for a steal in 2015, but rightfully so. Lackey made out in 2012, making $16M and not throwing one pitch.

The guy to trade would be Dempster. Eat 20-40% of his contract and trade him.

The Red Sox (or some new team) will rip it up, as they know that he will not play for 500,000. Rookie scrubs make 500,000. John Lackey just came off of a season in which he started the clinching game of the World Series and was one of two dependable starters all season. The Red Sox insured the contract and I am sure were reimbursed for Lackey's lost year.

I am not saying that Lackey earned the 82,500,000, but that doesn't really matter. If he holds out, then he will get paid. Likely, the issue is addressed before the end of the 2014 season.

Why should the Red Sox pay him for not pitching at all for a whole year? John Lackey agreed to that contract and unless its restructured in some way WILL play for $500K. I am pretty sure that just opting out of it is simply not an option available to him

Exactly. He knew what he was signing. If the agent who advises him on these matters told him it was a fair clause, there is no reason to believe he would suddenly decide it is not one....

Why should the Red Sox pay him for not pitching at all for a whole year? John Lackey agreed to that contract and unless its restructured in some way WILL play for $500K. I am pretty sure that just opting out of it is simply not an option available to him

[/QUOTE]

Look. I am not saying that baseball contracts, or any guaranteed athlete's contract are fair. But, three of the most well respected posters on this board are in fantasy, naive world if you guys think that Lackey is going to play for 1/30 of his 2014 salary in 2015.

In fact, I am a little shocked that anyone thinks that Lackey will play for 500,000.

Who would blame him if he holds out? Someone is going to pay him in 2015 and it will not be for 500,000.

Felix Hernandez has a similar clause, where if he spents 130 consecutive days on the DL, he has to pitch in 2020 for $1mill.

If anything, teams are probably going to use this type of clause more and more. The most likely reason the Sox have not used it is they have not signed a free agent pitcher to a long term contract since the Lackey deal.

It's really the safer way to handle the old-fashioned "with X amount of IP" vesting clause...

[/QUOTE]

I should not have put the side note on that statement, as I was mistaken.

That being said, only one contract has been inked since Lackey's contract four years ago that had a similar provision. Pitchers that have signed large contracts since Lackey: Justin Verlander, Anibal Sanchez, Cole Hamels, Zach Greinke, Matt Cain, CC Sabathia and Hernandez.

Lackey will not force a renegotiation. If anything, the Sox will approach him.

If no extension is accepted, there is a 100% chance Lackey will play for $500K in 2015 and be happy to do it.

He knows he collected $16M to not play at all in 2012.

I guess we are at the 'to each his own' point of the discussion. The Sox may approach him first, if for no other reason than to keep him happy.

You are 100% wrong here and Lackey will not play for 500,000 in 2015.

The only reason the Sox may approach Lackey to renegotiate is not because they feel he may hold out or be bummed out, it would be because they could gain Luxury tax limit dollars to spend this winter.

Lackey knew when he signed the deal that if he missed time due to the injury, he'd get paid for the year he missed and make it up on the back end. That's what happened, and he will live up to the bargain without complaint.

If Lackey pitches here in 2015, puts up good numbers, and doesn't complain about salary/respect it will be about the closest thing to a player doing the right thing I have ever seen (when it comes to money).

Why should the Red Sox pay him for not pitching at all for a whole year? John Lackey agreed to that contract and unless its restructured in some way WILL play for $500K. I am pretty sure that just opting out of it is simply not an option available to him

Look. I am not saying that baseball contracts, or any guaranteed athlete's contract are fair. But, three of the most well respected posters on this board are in fantasy, naive world if you guys think that Lackey is going to play for 1/30 of his 2014 salary in 2015.

In fact, I am a little shocked that anyone thinks that Lackey will play for 500,000.

Who would blame him if he holds out? Someone is going to pay him in 2015 and it will not be for 500,000.

I agree with your last statement. And it will probably be the Red Sox via a restructured team friendly deal, possibly for longer than 2 years. I am shocked that you have so little regard for John Lackey's integrity. Its not like anyone held a gun to his head and forced him to sign that contract; he signed it of his own free will and volition. As far as I know he was not insane when he signed it either. He WILL play for $500K if a new deal or a trade cannot be worked out. You can take that to the bank.

Why should the Red Sox pay him for not pitching at all for a whole year? John Lackey agreed to that contract and unless its restructured in some way WILL play for $500K. I am pretty sure that just opting out of it is simply not an option available to him

Look. I am not saying that baseball contracts, or any guaranteed athlete's contract are fair. But, three of the most well respected posters on this board are in fantasy, naive world if you guys think that Lackey is going to play for 1/30 of his 2014 salary in 2015.

In fact, I am a little shocked that anyone thinks that Lackey will play for 500,000.

Who would blame him if he holds out? Someone is going to pay him in 2015 and it will not be for 500,000.

His only option would be to hold out, whcih won't exactly widen his appeal for a deal in 2016. And anyone who has his rights in 2015 has them for $500K. It's not like he is free to negotaite a new deal.

The sox might rework the deal for him, especially since they really only have Victorino, and Buchholz on contract for any money in 2015. But if they don't, Lackey's only options are play for $500K or take his ball, go home, and not play for anyone, possibly ever again.

I think he lives up to the deal. He knew what he was signing, and this type of clause is probably going to become more common with free agent pitchers in the future...

Why should the Red Sox pay him for not pitching at all for a whole year? John Lackey agreed to that contract and unless its restructured in some way WILL play for $500K. I am pretty sure that just opting out of it is simply not an option available to him

Look. I am not saying that baseball contracts, or any guaranteed athlete's contract are fair. But, three of the most well respected posters on this board are in fantasy, naive world if you guys think that Lackey is going to play for 1/30 of his 2014 salary in 2015.

In fact, I am a little shocked that anyone thinks that Lackey will play for 500,000.

Who would blame him if he holds out? Someone is going to pay him in 2015 and it will not be for 500,000.

I agree with your last statement. And it will probably be the Red Sox via a restructured team friendly deal, possibly for longer than 2 years. I am shocked that you have so little regard for John Lackey's integrity. Its not like anyone held a gun to his head and forced him to sign that contract; he signed it of his own free will and volition. As far as I know he was not insane when he signed it either. He WILL play for $500K if a new deal or a trade cannot be worked out. You can take that to the bank.

Not to mention, Bigpapa might not be aware how many pitchers have some sort of injury-clause in theur contract. Lackey and King Felix have clauses that say they basically owe a year back if they miss one. CC and Hamels havve $20mill seasons riding on staying off the DL. Teams are protecting themselves better for these kind of situations. No one wants to be stuck with the next Johan Santana...

Well, I guess that I am in the minority on this board and we will just have to see. I am still 100% certain that Lackey does not pick up a ball if his contract is 500,000 for 2015. I do not see him report to spring training if he does not have a deal in place.

It is not about integrity, holding up one's end of a contract, being honest/fair or anything of the like.

I think that this clause/option was NEVER intended to be utilized as anything other than leverage in negociation for a new contract. I would equate this clause/option to an NFL player having a 20 million roster bonus on the 5th day of the NFL calender. The agent/player/team all know that the team will not pay the 20 MM, so they know that they will have to restructure/re-negociate the contract before the 5th day of that upcoming calender year to make sure that the player continues with the team. If not, they will let him go.

If Lackey knows that if he holds out, then he will be paid, why wouldn't he hold out? The Red Sox know that Lackey would not play for 500,000 and the team/player will get something done, which might be a trade.

Well, I guess that I am in the minority on this board and we will just have to see. I am still 100% certain that Lackey does not pick up a ball if his contract is 500,000 for 2015. I do not see him report to spring training if he does not have a deal in place.

It is not about integrity, holding up one's end of a contract, being honest/fair or anything of the like.

I think that this clause/option was NEVER intended to be utilized as anything other than leverage in negociation for a new contract. I would equate this clause/option to an NFL player having a 20 million roster bonus on the 5th day of the NFL calender. The agent/player/team all know that the team will not pay the 20 MM, so they know that they will have to restructure/re-negociate the contract before the 5th day of that upcoming calender year to make sure that the player continues with the team. If not, they will let him go.

If Lackey knows that if he holds out, then he will be paid, why wouldn't he hold out? The Red Sox know that Lackey would not play for 500,000 and the team/player will get something done, which might be a trade.

As several other posters have pointed out, 2015 will be a 'contract year' for Lackey. What he does in 2015 will have a big impact on the contract he gets after that. So he does have a major financial incentive to get out there and perform well.

Well, I guess that I am in the minority on this board and we will just have to see. I am still 100% certain that Lackey does not pick up a ball if his contract is 500,000 for 2015. I do not see him report to spring training if he does not have a deal in place.

It is not about integrity, holding up one's end of a contract, being honest/fair or anything of the like.

I think that this clause/option was NEVER intended to be utilized as anything other than leverage in negociation for a new contract. I would equate this clause/option to an NFL player having a 20 million roster bonus on the 5th day of the NFL calender. The agent/player/team all know that the team will not pay the 20 MM, so they know that they will have to restructure/re-negociate the contract before the 5th day of that upcoming calender year to make sure that the player continues with the team. If not, they will let him go.

If Lackey knows that if he holds out, then he will be paid, why wouldn't he hold out? The Red Sox know that Lackey would not play for 500,000 and the team/player will get something done, which might be a trade.

The clause was put in the contract because his injury was known at the time. Both sides knew he had a good chance of needing surgury and missing a season or more.

If the Sox decide to restructure or extend Lackey, they won't give him any extra money for 2015. For example, let's say they offer him an extension of $16M each for 2016 and 2017. They will simply pay him something like $11M each of those years and give him a $10M bonus paid in 2015.

He will not be given extra money for 2015. He got paid for 2015 in 2012.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but an owner can't give a player a bonus unless such a bonus or incentive is written into the contract. For instance if John Hennry wanted to give Uehara an extra $ mil. for his great efforts this past season he wouldn't be allowed to by the collective bargaining rules.

True, but if Lackey is signed to an extension, part of the extension could be a signing bonus paid throughout 2015.